Studies In Official Catholic Prophecy

[mercygate]

I must plead ignorance on this one. Can you give some specific examples? I do not see “The Mass” there at all.

A response a bit up the thread mentioned Scott Hahn in this regard. He has a book called The Lamb’s Supper in which he delineates the liturgical references in Revelation point-for-point much better than I can. Before I read this book, I had already picked up on the imagery of worship arising out of Temple models and reflected in Catholic worship: The Eucharist is our earthly participation in the Heavenly Banquet. The connection is even clearer in the liturgies of the Council of Trent and in the Byzantine Churches.

I must say that my reading of Revelation was heavily influenced by Jan Van Eyck’s majestic Ghent altarpiece, so I did not come to it unprejudiced. I was ‘ripe’ for Hahn’s explication because Van Eyck had already paved the way.

 

[Protestant101]

A response a bit up the thread mentioned Scott Hahn in this regard. He has a book called The Lamb’s Supper in which he delineates the liturgical references in Revelation point-for-point much better than I can. Before I read this book, I had already picked up on the imagery of worship arising out of Temple models and reflected in Catholic worship: The Eucharist is our earthly participation in the Heavenly Banquet. The connection is even clearer in the liturgies of the Council of Trent and in the Byzantine Churches.

I must say that my reading of Revelation was heavily influenced by Jan Van Eyck’s majestic Ghent altarpiece, so I did not come to it unprejudiced. I was ‘ripe’ for Hahn’s explication because Van Eyck had already paved the way.

“Van Eyck” sounds like “private interpretation.”

 

[mercygate]

“Van Eyck” sounds like “private interpretation.”

I’m not sure what you mean. Are you personally familiar with this important work of art? It portrays the Lamb “standing as though it had been slain” on the altar set in a pristine meadow – surrounded by holy ones in worship. In the upper portion Christ is seated as the ruler of the Universe, blessing the world.

 

[spauline]

Dear Protestant101,

I am very late to this thread, and I have not had the time to specifically read everything completely. I thought I would comment however that the full scoop has not been given.

Traditionally, prior to modern liberalism, modernism, and rationalism, the Church understood in the bigger picture that the apocalypse deals with God’s Plan for the Redemption of the entire human race, its meaning, etc., that is, from a spiritual standpoint.

And truly, in the end, salvation history is itself a linearly spiritual and psychological process. It is certainly a constant dialogue between the darkness and the light. That is, first darkness speaks, then the light, then darkness, then light, much like the days of Creation. And in each subsequent manifestation of the light by God in Salvation history, man has come to a deeper experience of God’s Truth and grace.

But as I am sure you know, P101, eventually God will give humanity all that he can, namely, the “fullness of the Gentiles”, that will be the final light WITHIN human history, and yet, even after that, the darkness will come again, but in a manner in which no more light can be given. That is, sin shall exert itself in an incurable manner, in an unforgivable manner. And so then the world must end, giving way to the permanent light, the New Creation itself. (note that,however, as the Gentiles close their eyes to God forever, then the eyes of the Jews shall be opened.)

And general although undefined Church teaching, based on St. Paul 2 Thess. 2, attests, even in the CCC, that the Church shall recognize when this final, incurable apostasy arises. No, she will not recognize the final day and hour, as if, “Christ shall return at 4:53 am on March 2, 3050”, but she WILL be able to discern, through meditation on the Scripture and Tradition when the process of Salvation history is coming to a close, that is, as Christ proclaims, she shall assume the fulfillment of Noah, and tell the world, “you are now departing from Christ irrevocably, you are turning away incurably, and God’s final judgement is imminent.”

But,again, the resolution of this mystery is already contained in the Sacred Scripture and Tradition, that is, the answers to the recognition of this final mystery is already at least IMPLICITLY in the Scriptre and Tradition, but it has yet to be “unveiled” through doctrinal development, a constant meditation on the deeper implications of the faith, and of that history that has already gone before us. So yes, in its ultimate sense, it IS about ages of history, but again, the ages are spiritual.

Hence, the people are not giving you the full scoop. Indeed, the Church shall come to recognize all the necessary ages that the Church must pass through spiritually, and understand their full implication and meaning in light of all salvation history.

And , unfortunately, very few Western Catholics are concerned with exploring these questions. The typical Catholic authors prefer to regurgitate preterism. Hence, Protestant101, much more study of these divine mysteries is needed in the Catholic Church today.

I pray God Bless you in your journey of faith.

 

[Protestant101]

Dear Protestant101,

I am very late to this thread, and I have not had the time to specifically read everything completely. I thought I would comment however that the full scoop has not been given.

Traditionally, prior to modern liberalism, modernism, and rationalism, the Church understood in the bigger picture that the apocalypse deals with God’s Plan for the Redemption of the entire human race, its meaning, etc., that is, from a spiritual standpoint.

And truly, in the end, salvation history is itself a linearly spiritual and psychological process. It is certainly a constant dialogue between the darkness and the light. That is, first darkness speaks, then the light, then darkness, then light, much like the days of Creation. And in each subsequent manifestation of the light by God in Salvation history, man has come to a deeper experience of God’s Truth and grace.

But as I am sure you know, P101, eventually God will give humanity all that he can, namely, the “fullness of the Gentiles”, that will be the final light WITHIN human history, and yet, even after that, the darkness will come again, but in a manner in which no more light can be given. That is, sin shall exert itself in an incurable manner, in an unforgivable manner. And so then the world must end, giving way to the permanent light, the New Creation itself. (note that,however, as the Gentiles close their eyes to God forever, then the eyes of the Jews shall be opened.)

And general although undefined Church teaching, based on St. Paul 2 Thess. 2, attests, even in the CCC, that the Church shall recognize when this final, incurable apostasy arises. No, she will not recognize the final day and hour, as if, “Christ shall return at 4:53 am on March 2, 3050”, but she WILL be able to discern, through meditation on the Scripture and Tradition when the process of Salvation history is coming to a close, that is, as Christ proclaims, she shall assume the fulfillment of Noah, and tell the world, “you are now departing from Christ irrevocably, you are turning away incurably, and God’s final judgement is imminent.”

But,again, the resolution of this mystery is already contained in the Sacred Scripture and Tradition, that is, the answers to the recognition of this final mystery is already at least IMPLICITLY in the Scriptre and Tradition, but it has yet to be “unveiled” through doctrinal development, a constant meditation on the deeper implications of the faith, and of that history that has already gone before us. So yes, in its ultimate sense, it IS about ages of history, but again, the ages are spiritual.

Hence, the people are not giving you the full scoop. Indeed, the Church shall come to recognize all the necessary ages that the Church must pass through spiritually, and understand their full implication and meaning in light of all salvation history.

And , unfortunately, very few Western Catholics are concerned with exploring these questions. The typical Catholic authors prefer to regurgitate preterism. Hence, Protestant101, much more study of these divine mysteries is needed in the Catholic Church today.

I pray God Bless you in your journey of faith.

I agree that more study within the Catholic Church leadership on prophecy would be in order; but I mean this in the best way possible. I really appreciated the spirit of your post, and am encouraged that it is still possible for Catholics and Protestants to study together, and have free exchange of their thoughts and findings on prophecy.

I know that the Catholic Church does have teachings and beliefs about Prophecy. They must have for it is in the Bible, from Genesis to Revelation.

Please allow me to give one example from Scripture that might show what I am getting at. To me, as a Protestant, Genesis 3:15 is a Bible prophecy. Can you, or someone else, explain the Catholic teaching on this verse?

 

[spauline]

I agree that more study within the Catholic Church leadership on prophecy would be in order; but I mean this in the best way possible. I really appreciated the spirit of your post, and am encouraged that it is still possible for Catholics and Protestants to study together, and have free exchange of their thoughts and findings on prophecy.

I know that the Catholic Church does have teachings and beliefs about Prophecy. They must have for it is in the Bible, from Genesis to Revelation.

Please allow me to give one example from Scripture that might show what I am getting at. To me, as a Protestant, Genesis 3:15 is a Bible prophecy. Can you, or someone else, explain the Catholic teaching on this verse?

Dear Protestant101,

thank you for your response. Yes, Catholicism does believe in this verse as a prefigurement of the New Eve, Mary, who indeed crushes the head of the serpent. Also, of course, Christ, the New Adam, does as well.

and while I mean no disrespect to your truly sincere faith in Christ, the Church must actually go on and tell you that it is not possibe to FULLY understand the mystery of salvation unless you are Catholic, because ecclesiology is at the center of Church history, and it is precisely ecclesiological rifts which were the primary seed of the modern minor apostasy. In that regard, there is high likelihood that the apocalypse and other Scriptures prophecy of the great spiritual attacks against Rome, which would of course include Protestantism. And they would portray these spiritual events in a negative light, seeing Protestantism cannot and does not improve the Christian condition, it worsens it. This is not to say that Protestants cannot be saved if they are not culpable for being separated from the Church, nor that the Rebellion is not understandable given the Catholic clergy scandal.

Behold, Christ speaks a mystery in John 17: “Father, I pray that they may be one, even as you and I are one, in order that the world may believe that you sent me.” This is perhaps the perennial apocalypstic question of our times: for behold, the disciples of Christ have tragically lost their unity, they have not loved one another as best as Jesus would have liked, and indeed, therefore, the world has lost faith, and cannot believe because of this. So then, there is the question: will they be reunited? And if they are able to be, will the world then BE able to believe (at least temporarily)?

THAT is the central apocalyptic question facing the Church.

 

[Protestant101]

Dear Protestant101,

thank you for your response. Yes, Catholicism does believe in this verse as a prefigurement of the New Eve, Mary, who indeed crushes the head of the serpent. Also, of course, Christ, the New Adam, does as well.

Ok; I am glad to have this confirmed. What I am actually looking for though is where in official Catholic doctrine is this written? Also, since posters above have stated that Catholics believe there was no more “public” revelation after the last apostle died, then this idea about Mary must be a “private” revelation, meaning it is not necessary to believe? Do you see what I mean when I say it all seems so confusing?

and while I mean no disrespect to your truly sincere faith in Christ, the Church must actually go on and tell you that it is not possibe to FULLY understand the mystery of salvation unless you are Catholic, because ecclesiology is at the center of Church history, and it is precisely ecclesiological rifts which were the primary seed of the modern minor apostasy. In that regard, there is high likelihood that the apocalypse and other Scriptures prophecy of the great spiritual attacks against Rome, which would of course include Protestantism.

Protestants would not see it quite this way, to be sure. Takke for eg. the scripture of Gen.3:15. I do not understand that “woman” being referred to as “Mary.” What means do Catholics use to determine that that “woman” is in fact “Mary?”

And they would portray these spiritual events in a negative light, seeing Protestantism cannot and does not improve the Christian condition, it worsens it. This is not to say that Protestants cannot be saved if they are not culpable for being separated from the Church, nor that the Rebellion is not understandable given the Catholic clergy scandal.

The more I study into it; the more I am leaning towards the thought that the original apostasy was in fact done by the Catholic Church, and that the “Reformation” was in fact, a Re-Formation of the true early church’s dependence upon the word of God only as the sole arbiter of faith and doctrine. I believe that all prophecy is “ecclesastical” in the sense that it shows the great improvements Protestants have made to Christianity in general, and how, unfortunately, some **from both sides **are/will be guilty of apostasy, as they turn against God’s express Word.

The remnant church of Bible prophecy is called the remnant for a reason.

 

[spauline]

Ok; I am glad to have this confirmed. What I am actually looking for though is where in official Catholic doctrine is this written? Also, since posters above have stated that Catholics believe there was no more “public” revelation after the last apostle died, then this idea about Mary must be a “private” revelation, meaning it is not necessary to believe? Do you see what I mean when I say it all seems so confusing?

We believe in doctrinal development. The current general interp which we cite is not, to the best of my knowledge, dogma. Doctrinal development is the idea that whereas public revelation ceased with the death of the last Apostle, the full IMPLICATIONS of what the Apostles left us were not yet fully realized. Hence, as time progresses, and in historical doctrinal dispute/crises, the Church is moved by the Holy Spirit to dig deeper into this deposit and work out DEEPER details and implications of the once for all deposit of faith. Hence, the subsequent dogmatic declarations of Catholic Councils and Popes are these very things. hence, whereas Public Revelation was “complete”, the Church is understanding this deposit more and more clearly and deeper and more specifically as Church history progresses. Hence, as I said, at some point before the Second Coming, the full meaning of the apocalyptic mysteries will be understood. Oh, and of course, it is the Holy Spirit that guides this whole process, hence, “and He shlal lead you into all truth.”

Protestants would not see it quite this way, to be sure. Takke for eg. the scripture of Gen.3:15. I do not understand that “woman” being referred to as “Mary.” What means do Catholics use to determine that that “woman” is in fact “Mary?”

I don’t have time to address this, that could be another thread, in fact, I’m sure there must already be threads in the archives that discuss this.

The more I study into it; the more I am leaning towards the thought that the original apostasy was in fact done by the Catholic Church, and that the “Reformation” was in fact, a Re-Formation of the true early church’s dependence upon the word of God only as the sole arbiter of faith and doctrine. I believe that all prophecy is “ecclesastical” in the sense that it shows the great improvements Protestants have made to Christianity in general, and how, unfortunately, some **from both sides **are/will be guilty of apostasy, as they turn against God’s express Word.

The remnant church of Bible prophecy is called the remnant for a reason.

I’m not saying Protestantism was an apostasy, or the beast or anything like that. Rather, just to be specific, I’d say Protestantism is the fifth trumpet, a great spiritual disturbance in which the victims (material heretics) lost five sacraments, which is so much grace to lose, they almost “died” supernaturally but didn’t, that is, they retained supernatural life, but it was a “torture” of five months, that is losing five sacraments.

I would reserve the beast and false prophet for utter spiritual depravity, mainly, atheists and relativists.

 

[mgrfin]

The more I study into it; the more I am leaning towards the thought that the original apostasy was in fact done by the Catholic Church, and that the “Reformation” was in fact, a Re-Formation of the true early church’s dependence upon the word of God only as the sole arbiter of faith and doctrine. I believe that all prophecy is “ecclesastical” in the sense that it shows the great improvements Protestants have made to Christianity in general, and how, unfortunately, some **from both sides **are/will be guilty of apostasy, as they turn against God’s express Word.

The remnant church of Bible prophecy is called the remnant for a reason.

Well, you are called “Protestant” for a reason. Of course, you are going to be biased. Now, I’d be happy to hear what changes Luther’s Revolt accomplished. Instead of one movement against the Church, we have now thousands of separatist sects and denominations. Luther opened the floodgates to believe whatever you wanted to believe. If you didn’t like a teaching, form your own church, and change it.

This kind of separatism and atomization is something Jesus had in mind when he founded his Church on Peter? Use your common sense. The more, as time moves on, the further these revolters move away from the message and from Jesus.

peace

 

[Protestant101]

I’m actually the Methodist-In-Residence…Though, if I were too far off the mark, someone would have called me on it long ago, I’m sure. (I hope…)

Again, you need to understand the terms “public revelation” and “private revelation”. Nothing in any part of the Bible is ever a private revelation.The very fact that it is in Scripture means, of necessity that it is public revelation, because that’s what the Bible is!!

OOps! I apologize; I didn’t mean to call you something you are not!

I think that I do grasp the basic idea of public versus private revelation; as depicted by Catholic doctrine; I guess that there are just aspects of it that I question. It seems to me that Catholics are saying that whenever I read something in the book of Revelation, or anywhere else which is prophetic in nature; that as long as I didn’t try to decide what the passage means; then I am in the world of public revelation; but as soon as I try to decipher what it means, using the Bible’s own clues, then suddenly it’s called “private revelation.” it seems like the Catholic view here leaves us no alternative but to flounder about in the fog of “private” revelation, if we dare to stray into the “interpretation” of a Bible passage - be it prophecy or otherwise.

Why would God even write these things in the Bible; if He did not care whether or not we figured out (interpreted) what it means? That concept doesn’t make sense to me.

 

[Protestant101]

Well, you are called “Protestant” for a reason. Of course, you are going to be biased. Now, I’d be happy to hear what changes Luther’s Revolt accomplished. Instead of one movement against the Church, we have now thousands of separatist sects and denominations. Luther opened the floodgates to believe whatever you wanted to believe. If you didn’t like a teaching, form your own church, and change it.

peace

I can understand that being Catholic, you would think that Protestants are the ones who apostasized during the days following the life and times of the Apostles; but there is growing an opinion that the Catholics were the first to apostasize, and move away from the gospel taught by Jesus, and then some Protestants did follow suit and joined in the apostasy. Luther didn’t have much to do with all that.

Jesus was a Protestant; He was not Catholic. Peter was not the foundation of The Church. Jesus was/is:

**

**
Upon this very rock, επι ταυτη τη πετρα - this true confession of thine - that I am The Messiah, that am come to reveal and communicate The Living God, that the dead, lost world may be saved - upon this very rock, myself, thus confessed (alluding probably to Psa_118:22, The Stone which the builders rejected is become the Head-Stone of the Corner: and to Isa_28:16, Behold I lay a Stone in Zion for a Foundation) - will I build my Church, μου την εκκλησιαν, my assembly, or congregation, i.e. of persons who are made partakers of this precious faith. That Peter is not designed in our Lord’s words must be evident to all who are not blinded by prejudice. Peter was only one of the builders in this sacred edifice, Eph_2:20 who himself tells us, (with the rest of the believers), was built on this living foundation stone: 1Pe_2:4, 1Pe_2:5, therefore Jesus Christ did not say, on thee, Peter, will I build my Church, but changes immediately the expression, and says, upon that very rock, επι ταυτη τη πετρα, to show that he neither addressed Peter, nor any other of the apostles. So, the supremacy of Peter, and the infallibility of the Church of Rome, must be sought in some other scripture, for they certainly are not to be found in this.

- Taken from Adam Clark’s Bible Commentary

 

[mgrfin]

OOps! I apologize; I didn’t mean to call you something you are not!

I think that I do grasp the basic idea of public versus private revelation; as depicted by Catholic doctrine; I guess that there are just aspects of it that I question. It seems to me that Catholics are saying that whenever I read something in the book of Revelation, or anywhere else which is prophetic in nature; that as long as I didn’t try to decide what the passage means; then I am in the world of public revelation; but as soon as I try to decipher what it means, using the Bible’s own clues, then suddenly it’s called “private revelation.” it seems like the Catholic view here leaves us no alternative but to flounder about in the fog of “private” revelation, if we dare to stray into the “interpretation” of a Bible passage - be it prophecy or otherwise.

Why would God even write these things in the Bible; if He did not care whether or not we figured out (interpreted) what it means? That concept doesn’t make sense to me.

I don’t agree with you. The Church has no problem with people sitting down, reading the bible, and applying it to their private lives.
Private interpretation has been going on since the inception of the Church.
The problem is when you interprete something in direction contradiction to a teaching in faith and morals.
Protestants would like to say that we don’t privately interprete the bible. How wrong they are.

peace

 

[mercygate]

You keep saying that “nothing in the Bible is ever private revelation;” but that is very confusing when you say things like “only the interpretation” is “private.” Either the Bible says something or it does not. Not much would be “private” about it if you were to use only the Bible to explain itself.

To me, there is no such thing as “public” or “private” revelation. Besides prophecy, the book of Revelation actually spells out the PROCESS of revelation as it comes to us via God; and there is no mention of this “public” or “private” business. All of God’s Word is for everybody. No need to secret half of it away into “private” or “public” corners that seem to oppose one another more than anything else.

You still don’t see the difference between the way Catholics distinguish between private and public revelation. Scripture is PUBLIC Revelation.

A vision or locution I receive from Our Lord PERSONALLY, something not specifically contained in Scripture, would be a private revelation.

You seem to be confusing the terms “revelation” (not the Bood of the NT but the process of God revealing Himself to us) and “interpretation.”

 

[mercygate]

I can understand that being Catholic, you would think that Protestants are the ones who apostasized during the days following the life and times of the Apostles;

No. We don’t think that because there WERE no protestants immediately following the Apostolic age.

but there is growing an opinion that the Catholics were the first to apostasize, and move away from the gospel taught by Jesus, and then some Protestants did follow suit and joined in the apostasy. Luther didn’t have much to do with all that.

What do you mean, “growing opinion” - we’ve been accused of this since the very beginning.

Jesus was a Protestant; He was not Catholic.

Ladies and Gentlemen, Protestant101 has just left the building!

Peter was not the foundation of The Church. Jesus was/is:

Really? I’ll bet you think that comes as news to Catholics? How stupid do you think we are?

**

• Taken from Adam Clark’s Bible Commentary

**This is the typical thrashing about, attempting to separate Peter from Peter’s Confession, trying to squirm out of the clear mandate that apart from Peter whatever the Church may be, it cannot be the Church that Jesus planted. And I would be pleased to oblige Mr. Clark with a discussion of ALL the biblical texts that support Peter’s headship among the Apostolic band. But that would be another thread.

Falling to such frail resources as this in an attempt to demonstrate one’s position is the first sign of thrashing as one begins to feel that first cold, but undeniable crack in one’s anti-Catholic armor, the first unwelcome tingle as one begins to realize that the Catholic Church may actually be Christian, and that she may actually be the Church Jesus Himself promised to build as His own Body.

 

[spauline]

OOps! I apologize; I didn’t mean to call you something you are not!

I think that I do grasp the basic idea of public versus private revelation; as depicted by Catholic doctrine; I guess that there are just aspects of it that I question. It seems to me that Catholics are saying that whenever I read something in the book of Revelation, or anywhere else which is prophetic in nature; that as long as I didn’t try to decide what the passage means; then I am in the world of public revelation; but as soon as I try to decipher what it means, using the Bible’s own clues, then suddenly it’s called “private revelation.” it seems like the Catholic view here leaves us no alternative but to flounder about in the fog of “private” revelation, if we dare to stray into the “interpretation” of a Bible passage - be it prophecy or otherwise.

Why would God even write these things in the Bible; if He did not care whether or not we figured out (interpreted) what it means? That concept doesn’t make sense to me.

You seem to ignore everything I’ve tried to explain. EVENTUALLY, the whole of Scripture, including the apocalypse, will be understood. But it will only occur over time. For now, speculation on the apocalypse for Catholics is fair game. It’s just that, for now, it remains merely speculation (NOT private revelation, which has nothing to do with speculation), until any future dogmatic declarations.

Speculation is not the same as private rev. Private rev is Mary or Jesus or a saint appears to you in a vision, and eventually the Church approves it, saying to the faithful, you CAN believe in this message if you like, but you don’t have to.

Speculation, on the other hand, is a Catholic who meditates and studies the book and has ideas of what layers of meaning it MIGHT have. So long as the person’s ideas do not conflict with already established dogma (PUBLIC REV), then the person can believe this personally. But his opinions at this point would not be binding on any other Catholic. But if the Church went in a council some day and said, with all bishops and the Pope, “We solemnly define, declare, as Revealed by Christ that such and such a passage must at least mean the following,…” Then that dogmatic interp would be binding on all the faithful. Similarly, if the normal although undefined teaching of the Church condemns a particular interp, then the faithful must assent (for example, this would include the Church’s condemnation of chiliasm, hence, a Catholic is in sin if they believe in chiliasm).

About apostasy, I don’t think the current Church would ever agree to say the Protestants are the beast or whore, because they have some truth and grace, and, if innocent, can be saved as such. Hence, Protestantism, if in the apoc, would need to be something less bad, for example, like the fifth trumpet.

 

[Keikiolu]

…{snip}…

It seems to me that Catholics are saying that whenever I read something in the book of Revelation, or anywhere else which is prophetic in nature; that as long as I didn’t try to decide what the passage means; then I am in the world of public revelation; but as soon as I try to decipher what it means, using the Bible’s own clues, then suddenly it’s called “private revelation.”

it seems like the Catholic view here leaves us no alternative but to flounder about in the fog of “private” revelation,…

That “floundering about” is EXACTLY what I (as a Catholic) see protestants DO when they “interpret scripture” without taking (Catholic) tradition and the teaching authority of the Church into consideration.

if we dare to stray into the “interpretation” of a Bible passage - be it prophecy or otherwise.

ALL of the Bible is “prophecy”, as it is “from God”.

The “obsession” of trying to “tell the future” with the Bible, and calling THAT “prophecy” is an incorrect use of the term “prophecy”.

I’d rather call that type of “prophetic interpretation”, Bibliomancy.

Why would God even write these things in the Bible; if He did not care whether or not we figured out (interpreted) what it means? That concept doesn’t make sense to me.

Firstly, you can’t read something and not get SOME meaning from it. The meaning may be utter nonsense to you, but you do get something.

Consider your use of the pronoun WE above. Who is this WE that you speak of?

To me, as a Catholic, the WE is The Church (Catholic), who should and does need to use ALL IT’S RESOURCES to correctly interpret God’s word.

…and that obligates The Church, and it’s members, to allow the “people whose job it is” to do that job of interpretation.

I’m free to have “private revelations”, but my private revelations can’t alter/disrupt “public revelation”.

To say I “know” (have had revealed to me) better than “those whose job it is” is shear arrogance.

Mahalo ke Akua…!
E pili mau na pomaikai ia oe. Aloha nui.

 

[mgrfin]

I can understand that being Catholic, you would think that Protestants are the ones who apostasized during the days following the life and times of the Apostles; but there is growing an opinion that the Catholics were the first to apostasize, and move away from the gospel taught by Jesus, and then some Protestants did follow suit and joined in the apostasy. Luther didn’t have much to do with all that.

Jesus was a Protestant; He was not Catholic. Peter was not the foundation of The Church. Jesus was/is:

---

- Taken from Adam Clark’s Bible Commentary

I am sure after a number of people respond to this absurdity, you will say, after all is said and done, “I was just kidding”.

Put doiwn the kool-aid, 101. You’ve had enough.

peace

September 8th is the Nativity of the BVM

O Mary, Mother of God, pray for us.

 

[mgrfin]

Ok; I am glad to have this confirmed. What I am actually looking for though is where in official Catholic doctrine is this written? Also, since posters above have stated that Catholics believe there was no more “public” revelation after the last apostle died, then this idea about Mary must be a “private” revelation, meaning it is not necessary to believe? Do you see what I mean when I say it all seems so confusing?.

Where is the official Catholic interpretation of this passage?

One, and I mention only one, (because from antiquity there are many, many), is in the Encyclical letter of PIo Nono, in 1854, Ineffabilis Deus

Quote:
“The Fathers and writers of the Church, well versed in the heavenly Scriptures, had nothing more at heart than to vie with one another in preaching and teaching in many wonderful ways the Virgin’s supreme sanctity, dignity, and immunity from all stain of sin, and her renowned victory over the most foul enemy of the human race. This they did in the books they wrote to explain the Scriptures, to vindicate the dogmas, and to instruct the faithful. These ecclesiastical writers in quoting the words by which at the beginning of the world God announced his merciful remedies prepared for the regeneration of mankind – words by which he crushed the audacity of the deceitful serpent and wondrously raised up the hope of our race, saying, “I will put enmities between you and the woman, between your seed and her seed”[13] – taught that by this divine prophecy the merciful Redeemer of mankind, Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, was clearly foretold: That his most Blessed Mother, the Virgin Mary, was prophetically indicated; and, at the same time, the very enmity of both against the evil one was significantly expressed. Hence, just as Christ, the Mediator between God and man, assumed human nature, blotted the handwriting of the decree that stood against us, and fastened it triumphantly to the cross, so the most holy Virgin, united with him by a most intimate and indissoluble bond, was, with him and through him, eternally at enmity with the evil serpent, and most completely triumphed over him, and thus crushed his head with her immaculate foot.[14]”

Peace.

September 8th is the Feast of the Nativity of BVM

 

[Protestant101]

Ladies and Gentlemen, Protestant101 has just left the building!

Excellent **Eisegesis, **

 

[Protestant101]

Where is the official Catholic interpretation of this passage?

One, and I mention only one, (because from antiquity there are many, many), is in the Encyclical letter of PIo Nono, in 1854, Ineffabilis Deus

words by which he crushed the audacity of the deceitful serpent and wondrously raised up the hope of our race, saying, “I will put enmities between you and the woman, between your seed and her seed”[13] – taught that by this divine prophecy the merciful Redeemer of mankind, Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, was clearly foretold: That his most Blessed Mother, the Virgin Mary, was prophetically indicated; and, at the same time, the very enmity of both against the evil one was significantly expressed. … and thus crushed his head with her immaculate foot.[14]"

Peace.

September 8th is the Feast of the Nativity of BVM

Thankyou, I was wondering if I could ask a question about the author, PIo Nono? Was this a Pope?

I would be interested in seeing detailed explanations by Catholics; how they arrived at the conclusion stated herein that the “woman” in Genesis 3:15 is “Mary?” I don’t understand why it would be her.